Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
12-11-2008
In Re: Kelley Troy Cooley
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 08-4241
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"In Re: Kelley Troy Cooley " (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 119.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/119
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
HLD-13 (November 2008) NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 08-4241
___________
IN RE: KELLEY TROY COOLEY,
Petitioner
___________________________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(Related to D.C. Civil Action No. 1-07-cv-00208)
____________________________________
Submitted Under Rule 21, Fed R. App. P.
November 26, 2008
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, WEIS and GARTH, Circuit Judges
(Filed: December 11, 2008)
___________
OPINION
___________
PER CURIAM.
Kelley Troy Cooley brought an action in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. §
1983, against numerous defendants, including the County of Erie, Pennsylvania. Cooley
contended in his complaint that his constitutional rights were violated on March 7, 2007,
when, both during and after his criminal sentencing before Judge Cunningham in the
1
Court of Common Pleas of Erie County, sheriffs used excessive force while removing
him from the courthouse. Cooley also alleged that county sheriffs used racial slurs
against him and that prison officials denied him medical treatment.
Cooley filed numerous pre-trial motions in the case. A magistrate judge,
who is presiding over pretrial matters, denied several of Cooley’s motions. The motions
included a motion to appoint trial counsel, a motion for leave to amend his complaint, and
several discovery-related motions. Following the magistrate judge’s orders denying the
motions, Cooley sought review with the district judge. The district judge, upon review of
the appeal, issued a June 26, 2008 Opinion and Order of the Court affirming the
magistrate judge’s prior determinations. He also denied motions filed by Cooley seeking
to recuse the magistrate judge and to obtain a default judgment against defendants for
their alleged failure to produce certain discovery.1
A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. See Kerr v. U.S. Dist Ct.,
426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). Within the discretion of the issuing court, mandamus
traditionally may be “used ... only ‘to confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of its
prescribed jurisdiction or to compel it to exercise its authority when it is its duty to do
so.’” Id. (citations omitted). A petitioner must show “no other adequate means to attain
the desired relief, and ... a right to the writ [that] is clear and indisputable.’” See In re
1
In a matter docketed at C.A. No. 08-3184, we address Cooley’s interlocutory appeal
of the district judge’s order.
2
Patenaude, 210 F.3d 135, 141 (3d Cir. 2000) (citation omitted).
Cooley, in filing his petition for writ of mandamus, seeks in essence to
obtain interlocutory review of the district judge’s June 26, 2008 Order denying Cooley’s
various pretrial non-dispositive motions. Mandamus is not a substitute for appeal,
however. See Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 542 U.S. 367, 380-81 (2004); Madden v. Myers,
102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996). Cooley has not demonstrated that he is without other
adequate means for relief. In re Patenaude, 210 F.3d at 141. At a later time, on appeal
(if necessary), Cooley may renew his arguments about the district court’s rulings. Indeed,
mandamus is “available only when necessary to prevent grave injustice.” Bogosian v.
Gulf Oil Corp., 738 F.2d 587, 591 (3d Cir. 1984). We perceive no “grave injustice” here.
The only issue in Cooley’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus over which this
Court might provide mandamus review is the District Court’s denial of Cooley’s motion
under 28 U.S.C. § 455 to recuse the magistrate judge. See In re Sch. Asbestos Litig., 977
F.2d 764, 776-78 (3d Cir. 1992). Cooley’s motion for recusal and belief that the
magistrate judge showed bias are based primarily upon the magistrate judge’s rulings on
various motions that he filed. As the District Court correctly noted, judicial rulings rarely
constitute a basis for recusal. Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). We are
not persuaded that the magistrate judge’s rulings demonstrate any kind of bias, let alone
one justifying mandamus relief.
For the foregoing reasons, mandamus relief is not appropriate here. We
3
will deny the petition. Petitioner’s motion to intervene and demand for stay are DENIED.
4